This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

The European Commission has proposed that trucks from the UK will be "temporarily allowed" to carry goods into the EU until the end of 2019 under a 'no-deal' Brexit provided that the UK offers equivalent rights to the EU

SIR – Why is it only now that Theresa May and her Cabinet are prioritising planning for a “no deal” scenario?

During the past two and a half years of discussions and “negotiations”, only the scantest lip service has been paid to a situation that is becoming more likely by the day. The reluctance of Philip Hammond to fund detailed preparation can only be explained as a cynical ploy to support Project Fear.

A clear statement should have been made to the EU that Britain was prepared to walk away at any time. This would have been our strongest bargaining position. The Government’s inaction is at best incompetent; more likely, however, it has been deliberate and deceitful.

So, coffee, what deal will we have in place within 100 days that will allow flights to the USA?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Well at least we'll be able to fly to the USA to buy the life-saving medicines some will need...

But all completely unnecessary. What a waste.

ETA: Oh but wait! The other agreements are with... wait for it... "Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Kosovo, Montenegro, Morocco and Switzerland". Of course, Switzerland is a waste of time unless we have an agreement with the EU to fly over their airspace. And some routes to the US will not be possible for the same reason.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. Emergency planning costs balloon as the government prepares for medical shortages

2. Lorry queues at Dover may back up to Maidstone or beyond

3. Economic growth will take a hit of nearly 10%

4. Some major industries will be hamstrung

5. UK exporters face annual tariff costs of more than £6bn

Or does none of that matter as long as the UK panders to the racists?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Our free trade deal with the United States is on the horizon. Our exit from the European Union is approaching. We must ensure we Get Britain Out of the EU so we can make this future of enhanced prosperity a reality

A £2bn contingency fund, 3,500 troops on standby, and reserved space on ferries: these are some of the government’s plans for a no-deal Brexit. With Theresa May stepping up the planning, what was once seen as economic disaster for Britain, is being rebranded as a “clean break” from the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. Jacob Rees-Mogg tweets: “WTO terms are much better than remaining shackled to the EU.” Wetherspoon chairman Tim Martin is currently touring the country telling anyone who will listen that only “project fear” thinks Britain being relegated to WTO terms will be damaging and that a no-deal Brexit will allow us to become one of the “champions of free trade” once again.

With this narrative gaining popularity in some corners, it has brought the WTO into the national conversation in a way that hasn’t happened before. While other countries struggle to understand why any nation would willingly leave the world’s largest trading bloc to trade on WTO terms, they overlook the connection between the WTO’s image as a vehicle for free trade and the vision of history where “the terms ‘Britain’ and ‘free trade’ were virtually synonymous” that Brexiteers cling to.

The WTO, established in 1995, was the first major international institution to be created following the conclusion of the cold war and the emergence of a new world order of global capitalism. Now home to 164 member countries all signed up to shared rules that govern international trade, it was created to guide the world away from the various shades of protectionist economic regulations that had emerged in the decades following the second world war. The WTO promised to provide the legal architecture for a multilateral trading system and, despite the clear asymmetry in global trade that resulted from historical exploitation of some parts of the globe by others, it offered the vision of the international marketplace as a level playing field where states make free and rational choices about their trade relations with each other. By encouraging the reduction of tariffs, the level of tax that countries impose on imports from other countries, the WTO was supposed to make global trade easier, leading to increased riches for all parties.

The only problem was that everyone quickly realised trading on WTO terms did not meet the reality of their economic needs. As of 2018, all WTO members are noted as a signatory to some sort of bilateral or regional trade agreement, rather than trading on WTO terms alone. Yet, as settling on a withdrawal agreement has so far seemed impossible, the UK is now stepping up plans to trade with the EU under WTO terms in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

To understand why parts of the Tory party are happy for Britain to walk in the opposite direction to the rest of the world regarding WTO terms, we must understand their attraction to the myth of how in centuries past, Britain became rich through “global free trade”. With influential economists David Ricardo and Adam Smith serving as intellectual forefathers, Britain’s rise to prominence is seen as intertwined with the rise of the doctrine of free trade, with the removal of legal restrictions on trade producing a system where natural British industriousness and innovation could thrive.

Celebrating and exaggerating Britain’s free-trade policies of the late 19th century, this narrative ignores the prologue to the story, in which the British empire first accumulated wealth through gunboat diplomacy and enforced markets over the 18th and early 19th centuries. Britain only embraced unilateral zero tariffs once its geopolitical power had been built up, and it would quickly depart from free trade and move towards protectionism at the start of the 20th century through the policy of imperial preference, encouraging trade within the empire.

However, the myth persists that anything that promotes free trade promotes British interests. Brexiteers promote a fantasy ideal of the WTO being the answer to all Britain’s problems despite the libraries of research that argue that its rules lead to the impoverishment of countries that have to rely on them. Because Brexiteers misunderstand Britain’s past, they believe that Britain has a “special relationship” to world trade. They cannot fathom the damage that relying on WTO terms to govern trade with our largest trading partner will do to the economy, even if it is obvious to rest of the world.

• Dr Kojo Koram teaches at the School of Law at Birkbeck College, University of London, and writes on issues of law, race and empire

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1/2 As predicted, Brussels border bluff called. Backstop has been shown for what it is: A political trap to keep us wedded to a customs union. Varadkar has been exposed. Irish Gov plans reveal they plan nothing new at land border. There was never any need for it! Shame on Mrs May

The Brexit comedy continues... It's a laugh a minute and would be funny if it wasn't people's jobs and lives at stake.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Have you had time to think about the answer to these questions I posed a few days ago?

By the way, if we do crash out with no deal as some Brexit idiots seem to want, what do you think the WTO tariffs on, say, cars, shoes & clothes and beef we export to the EU will be? And what tariffs will we impose on imports?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

WATCH | Yet more chaos on the streets of Paris as the long-ignored people of France rebel against their pathetic "leader" @EmmanuelMacron. This is what happens when you put the interests of Brussels above the concerns of your own nation - what an absolute mess!

If we are dragged out of the EU with no deal by the Tories, what happens in Germany or elsewhere in the EU will be the very least of our worries.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?